• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Monroe Doctrine

atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, was a U.S. foreign policy stating the Americas were closed to further European colonization, that European interference in the hemisphere would be seen as hostile, and that the U.S. would not meddle in European affairs, establishing separate spheres of influence and becoming a cornerstone for U.S. involvement and dominance in Latin America. Its core principles are non-colonization, non-intervention, and separate American/European spheres, profoundly shaping U.S. expansion and global role.

Key Principles (1823)
  • Separate Spheres: The political systems of the Americas (republican) and Europe (monarchical) are fundamentally different and should remain separate.
  • Non-Colonization: The Western Hemisphere is no longer open to European colonization.
  • Non-Interference: The U.S. would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and any European attempt to control or oppress nations in the Americas would be viewed as unfriendly to the U.S..

Historical Context & Purpose
  • Post-Colonial Americas: Newly independent Latin American nations faced threats from European powers (like Spain and its allies) seeking to restore colonial control.
  • U.S. Security & Trade: The U.S. sought to prevent European powers from expanding influence, which threatened its own security and free trade opportunities in the region.
  • British Alignment: Great Britain, also favoring free trade and opposing Spanish recolonization, initially proposed a joint declaration, but U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams insisted on an independent American statement to assert U.S. sovereignty.


Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy
  • Justification for Intervention: Later presidents, notably Theodore Roosevelt (Roosevelt Corollary), expanded the doctrine, justifying U.S. intervention in Latin America to maintain stability, leading to economic and political involvement.
  • American Hegemony: It asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, becoming a guiding principle for U.S. grand strategy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
There has recently been talk of the Monroe Doctrine in the news. Does it have any place in the 21st Century?
(This was nibbled at the edges in another discussion, so let’s open it up and address it head on.)
 
Ben1445

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
One thing to keep in mind in all this is that while another President may follow the Monroe doctrine, Presidential doctrine is not necessarily law. It is the policy of the administration. Just because Monroe had a doctrine of foreign policy, doesn’t mean that we should still be following it. I’m not talking about whether it was good or bad.
Just that it is a past or even present Presidents doctrine for whom it was named.
Do they follow every other doctrine?
Does it matter whether or not they do?
Only in the court of public opinion.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is the actual text, at the end of the article.

Note that Teddy Roosevelt and JFK created corollaries to the Non-Interference doctrine.

Also of interest, at least to me, was the efforts of the Third Reich to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America.
And the following "overreach" during the Eisenhower years, by Dulles and the CIA.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Here is what I wonder about.

There are people that criticize historic efforts by the US at “state building“ around the globe. Whether the intentions were right or wrong, history has certainly shown that the EXECUTION has certainly proven “worse” for the people living there than the prior conditions in some cases. This suggests that at least SOME “state building” is wrong. Somalia is certainly an example where the lives of the average person has not improved from “regime change”.

If we focus on the ”Americas”, we see “state building” efforts under way by external players like Russia and China and Iran. We see the life of the average citizen under many of these experiments have suffered in a way similar to the failed efforts at U.S. “nation building”. Venezuela (prior to and ignoring the US intervention) certainly illustrates this in a manner similar to Somalia … people were forced to eat pets to survive.

QUESTION 1:
The US certainly has the ABILITY to challenge foreign “state building” efforts in the Americas (where these efforts by stated enemies of the USA are to create problems for the USA). Should the USA defend itself by defending its neighbors? Is it reasonable? Is it justified? Is it moral?

QUESTION 2:
If it is reasonable for the USA to do “something”, what are the limits of that “something”? Should we demand FRIENDLY governments? Should we demand true DEMOCRACIES and accept the self-determination of those people? Should we seek to counter foreign influence but accept HOSTILE Despots? Should we accept outside influence and treat the “American” nations as enemy combatants?
 
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
Substantiate this whopper about "the efforts of the Third Reich to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America".

It was fake news!
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting something actionable!

My statement is based upon the book, "The Women Who Smashed Codes" by Jason Fagone. Here is an excerpt from a review of this book:

Despite the fact that Smith Friedman broke the Nazi spy ring in South America—arguably preventing Hitler from gaining a toehold in the region—Hoover manipulated the press to claim her victory as his own. He published a seven page story in The American Magazine called “How The Nazi Spy Invasion Was Smashed” which rewrote history and got his men of the FBI to take the credit for Smith Friedman breaking the complex intercepted messages that were coming out of Brazil and Argentina.​

 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
By the way, my understanding of WWII is based largely upon the biographical books of several important persons of WWII. Churchill, Eisenhower, Nimitz, spring to mind, plus books and articles detailing significant contributions such as the development of the computer, radar, underwater detection, the P51, and the jet engine. Not to mention the Manhattan project... That one was the book "Day of Trinity," by Lansing Lamont.
 
Last edited:
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LOL, I asked Google about your fantasy of 'the Third Reich's efforts to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America':
There is no historical evidence that Hitler planned a military "beachhead" or invasion of South America during World War II. Germany's military focus was on Europe and the Soviet Union, and they lacked the logistical capability for a transcontinental invasion of the Americas.

The phrase "beachhead in South America" might appear in the context of:
  • Alternate History Scenarios: Online discussions or fiction sometimes explore hypothetical timelines where the Axis powers established a foothold in South America, but these are speculative scenarios, not historical facts.
  • Wartime Propaganda: In 1941, British intelligence created a forged map, presented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that showed a supposed Nazi plan to reorganize South America into five satellite states....
Click to expand...
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
LOL, I asked Google about your fantasy of 'the Third Reich's efforts to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America':
Click to expand...


I already proved it was not my fantasy, so for you to repeat your false claim indicates malice. Next you edit "clandestine" out of the beachhead phrase, and insert military beachhead. Why not address what I said?
 
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm sorry, when you said beachhead, I thought you meant beachhead.

Beachhead

"when a military unit reaches a landing beach by sea and begins to defend the area as other reinforcements arrive. Once a large enough unit is assembled, the invading force can begin advancing inland."
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Returning to topic, the key feature of the Monroe doctrine is "Non-Interference." Thus blocking the interference of others but allowing your own interference is not in accordance with the doctrine. We might call this self-serving doctrine America Imperialism.

So our key question seems to be: Are the Drug Cartels proxies for foreign powers waging biological warfare against the United States. If your answer is Yes, then our action in Venezuela was consistent with the Non-Interference doctrine of Monroe.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
I'm sorry, when you said beachhead, I thought you meant beachhead.

en.wikipedia.org

Beachhead - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"when a military unit reaches a landing beach by sea and begins to defend the area as other reinforcements arrive. Once a large enough unit is assembled, the invading force can begin advancing inland."
Click to expand...
I am sorry but you appear to have thought nothing of the sort as you deliberately removed clandestine after I referred to a Nazi spy ring.

Folks, within the except quoted in post #9, it says the lady broke the Nazi spy ring preventing Hitler from gaining a "toehold" in the region. Toehold is a syndrome for beachhead. The absurdity seems to be the false claim a spy ring toehold should not be referred to as a clandestine beachhead. I kid you not...
 
Last edited:
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Returning to topic, the key feature of the Monroe doctrine is "Non-Interference." Thus blocking the interference of others but allowing your own interference is not in accordance with the doctrine. We might call this self-serving doctrine America Imperialism.

So our key question seems to be: Are the Drug Cartels proxies for foreign powers waging biological warfare against the United States. If your answer is Yes, then our action in Venezuela was consistent with the Non-Interference doctrine of Monroe.
Click to expand...
The Drug Cartels are providing funding for Iran, China and Russia to conduct clandestine operations in the Americas (just like the CIA support for "rebel groups" of our enemies). Iran, China and Russia are all violating the UN sanctions and blockade and using Venezuela to trans-ship military equipment around the globe to bypass other UN sanctions and prohibitions.

Does that count as "Non-interference" under the Monroe Doctrine?
Does the US have a reason to care?
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
atpollard said:
The Drug Cartels are providing funding for Iran, China and Russia to conduct clandestine operations in the Americas (just like the CIA support for "rebel groups" of our enemies). Iran, China and Russia are all violating the UN sanctions and blockade and using Venezuela to trans-ship military equipment around the globe to bypass other UN sanctions and prohibitions.

Does that count as "Non-interference" under the Monroe Doctrine?
Does the US have a reason to care?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the purpose was for your post. If your question is: Should America try to minimize human suffering, such as needless killings, I think the answer is Yes.

I think it is likely the Drug Cartels are purchasing fentanyl precursor drugs from China and and heroin from Iran or its Islamic proxies. Perhaps Russia is also providing material for the Cartels, but I am unfamiliar with that aspect of their malignancy. I am aware that Venezuela did purchase Russian made military equipment which did not provide the needed protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top